If the OP turns their macroeconomics textbook into a chatbot, you can ask it how labor has fared in the past with regard to how profits are maximized through industrial optimization. The response to your question directly may illuminate something to the affect of "it depends" or "yes and no". Certainly, big changes are inevitable. I used to work in industrial rope access and I remember when folks in the industry were scared of drones. But before that, scaffold builders were scared of rope access work. There will always be fear of change and a desire to protect our fiefdoms, but perhaps we rise above and find a new way to see opportunity, remain open, and flexible in life.
It circled around every concept, gave a lot of references and refused to answer the question.
So, whatever the answer (yeah, you gave the answer), looks like it can wait a while. Politicians, on their turn must be wary. Here is what it said:
> In Chapter 11, we discussed how firms can maximize profits by producing the quantity such that P=MC, entering industries where P>AC, and exiting industries where P<AC. We also discussed how the movement of labor from weaker firms to stronger firms can increase efficiency. In Handbook of Labor Economics, it was found that in the United States, 60% of the increase in U.S. manufacturing efficiency was caused by people moving from weak firms to strong firms. In this chapter, we also discussed how firms can use limited resources, such as labor and capital, to produce goods in order to satisfy as many of our wants as possible. This means that firms must allocate labor and capital to their highest value uses in order to maximize profits.
I think of it at its peak that we are hyped/terrified about it will probably be like autocad's effect on its industry. Where now you need to know a lot more about functional and design and deep knowledge rather than some syntax. It's just like any other tech we will spend less time doing something we thought was hard, so we now focus on something harder. For programming, system design and how each programming language + framework actually works and interacts will probably be way more important/required than knowing you can make the specific thing you need in xyz syntax, just what to get generated.
When I asked chatgpt if it will replace engineers:
No, AI language models like ChatGPT are not designed to replace engineers. AI can automate certain tasks and assist engineers in their work, but it cannot fully replace the creative, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills of human engineers. AI is best used as a tool to enhance human capabilities and improve efficiency, rather than as a replacement for human workers. In many cases, the integration of AI and human expertise can lead to more innovative and effective solutions.
> AI can automate certain tasks and assist engineers in their work, but it cannot fully replace the creative, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills of human engineers.
It very likely can. That it can't is an extraordinary claim with no evidence at all to support it.
It just doesn't right now, and GPT and LLMs in general are almost certainly not the correct kind of AI to do that.